Historic St. Anthony Catholic Church
258 Ohio, Wichita, Ks
2nd St. & Ohio
Two blocks east of Old Town
Sunday Mass at 1:oo
English/Latin missals provided. Join us for coffee and donuts after mass downstairs in the St. Clair/Sunshine room, south exterior basement entrance.
Pastor of St. Anthony Parish: Fr. Ben Nguyen
EFLR Celebrants: Fr. John Jirak, Fr Nicholas Voelker
Master of Ceremonies: Tony Strunk
Choir Director: Bernie Dette

Continuing News

+To submit an article or if you have comments contact me, Mark, at bumpy187@gmail.com.

Like us on Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/VeniteMissaEst?ref=hl

Did You Know

Mass Propers, the readings that change everyday, can be found in the red missalettes at the entrance of church?

Fr. Nicholas Voelker celebrates Low Mass Saturdays at 8:00 a.m., St. Mary's Catholic Church, 106 East 8th street, Newton. There is no mass this Saturday, January 30, 2016.

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Post #67

Topics: Pictures: Visiting Monk: Mass at St. Anthony....Douay-Rheims Bible: Online and Searchable....Excerpt: The Imitation of Christ by Thomas A'Kempis....Lent Is Old English for Spring And Other Fascinating Facts:James Akin; Catholic Answers....Vatican Makes New Plea For 'Reform of the Reform': Catholic World News....The Baltimore Catechism: On The Incarnation and Redemption....Sola Scriptura?: By Grace at Spring Whimsy @ Blogspot


Blogger's Note

Good folks,

It has come to my attention that some of the email/newsletters being generated by this blog are not reaching their intended recipients. This has been in large part due to technical reasons of the third party software/applications that are being used to generate this blog. I have been working diligently to avoid these problems.

It has also come to my attention that some email/newsletters have been reaching readers who have not subscribed, my presumption being that they are forwarded by other recipients. Please note that Venite Missa Est does not make use of mass mailing lists or mail to unsolicited email addresses. FYI: for those who have received this email/newsletter, we are online at http://venite-missa-est.blogspot.com/ if you were not aware.

One final housekeeping note: Since St. Anthony is the only local church celebrating the Traditional Latin Mass (EFLR) we are loosely centered around this parish but by no means in any way are we, this blog, an official voice of,or for, St. Anthony or the Diocese of Wichita. Venite Missa Est is strictly a private layman's endeavor....lest some of you find some content objectionable...don't get your socks in a knot.


Visiting Monk from Clear Creek Monastery
Pictures of Mass at St. Anthony

Father Bethel, a monk from Clear Creek Monastery in Oklahoma, offered the Latin Mass at St. Anthony's on Sunday, Feb. 22, and celebrated low mass on Saturday, Feb. 21. There are many pictures available for viewing in my public gallery: View all pictures of that mass here. Feel free to download and enjoy. Click on the pictures below for bigger views.


Douay-Rheims Bible: Online and Searchable

Much to by great suprise I ran across the Douay-Rheims Bible (Latin Vulgate Bible) online at http://drbo.org/. This is a great resource to use from the folks at drbo.org.

The site is fully functional and searchable and includes the 1989 Preface, writings entitled The One True Church, The Church & Her Enemies, Pope Leo's Encyclical and more.


A.M.D.G et B.V.M.H.

"To many this seemeth a hard saying: 'Deny thyself, take up thy cross, and follow Jesus.' But it will be much harder to that last word; 'Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire.' For they who now love to hear and follow the word of the cross shall not then fear the sentence of eternal condemnation. This sign of the cross shall be in heaven when the Lord shall come to judge. Then all servants of the cross, who in their lifetime have conformed themselves to Him that was crucified, shall come to Christ their Judge with great confidence."

(from Book II, Chapter 12 of The Imitation of Christ by Thomas A'Kempis)


Lent Is Old English for Spring And Other Fascinating Facts
By James Akin
Catholic Answers

Blogger's note: Update, 3-1-09 A much wiser man than I informs me that the following article may not be accurate.

According to the General Norms for the Liturgical Year and the Calendar, "Lent is a preparation for the celebration of Easter. For the Lenten liturgy disposes both catechumens and the faithful to celebrate the paschal mystery: catechumens, through the several stages of Christian initiation; the faithful through reminders of their own baptism and through penitential practices" (General Norms 27).

Is Lent actually forty days long?

Technically, no. According to the General Norms, "Lent runs from Ash Wednesday until the Mass of the Lord's Supper, exclusive" (General Norms 28). This means Lent ends at the beginning of the Mass of the Lord's Supper on Holy Thursday. Count it as you will, that's more than forty days. Therefore, the number forty in traditional hymns such as "Lord, Who Throughout These Forty Days" is only an approximation.

Are Sundays excluded from Lent?

No. The definition of what days are included in Lent is given above, in General Norms 28. No exception is made for Sundays. Indeed, the General Norms go on to specifically name the Sundays of the period as belonging to the season: "The Sundays of this season are called the First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Sundays of Lent. The Sixth Sunday, which marks the beginning of Holy Week, is called Passion Sunday (Palm Sunday)" (General Norms 30).
Some people customarily allow themselves on Sunday to have things they have voluntarily given up for Lent, but since these forms of self-denial were voluntarily assumed anyway, a person is not under an obligation to practice them on Sunday (or any other specific day of the week).

Why is the season called Lent?

Lent is the Old English word for spring. In almost all other languages, Lent's name is a derivative of the Latin term quadragesima or "the forty days."

Why is Lent approximately forty days long?

In the Bible, forty days is a traditional number of discipline, devotion, and preparation. Moses stayed on the mountain of God forty days (Ex. 24:18, 34:28). The spies were in the land forty days (Num. 13:25). Elijah traveled forty days before he reached the cave where he had his vision (1 Kgs. 19:8). Nineveh was given forty days to repent (Jonah 3:4). And, most significantly for our Lenten observance, Jesus spent forty days in wilderness praying and fasting prior to undertaking his ministry (Matt. 4:2). Thus it is fitting for Christians to imitate him with a forty-day period of prayer and fasting to prepare to celebrate the climax of Christ's ministry, Good Friday (the day of the crucifixion) and Easter Sunday (the day of the Resurrection).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "'For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sinning' [Heb. 4:15]. By the solemn forty days of Lent the Church unites herself each year to the mystery of Jesus in the desert" (CCC 540).

What are fast and abstinence?

Under current canon law in the Western rite of the Church, a day of fast is one on which Catholics who are eighteen to sixty years old are required to keep a limited fast. In this country you may eat a single, normal meal and have two snacks so long as these snacks do not add up to a second meal. Children are not required to fast, but their parents must ensure they are properly educated in the spiritual practice of fasting. A day of abstinence is a day on which Catholics fourteen years and older are required to abstain from eating meat. (Though under the current discipline of the Western rite of the Church, fish, eggs, milk products, and foods made using animal fat are permitted, they are not in the Eastern rites.) Their pastor can easily dispense those with medical conditions from the requirements of fast and/or abstinence.

Is there a biblical basis for abstaining from meat as a sign of repentance?

Yes. The book of Daniel states, "In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia . . . 'I, Daniel, mourned for three weeks. I ate no choice food; no meat or wine touched my lips; and I used no lotions at all until the three weeks were over'" (Dan. 10:1-3).

Isn't abstaining from meat one of the "doctrines of demons" Paul warned about in 1 Timothy 4:1-5?

When Paul warned of those who "forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods," he had in mind people with the Manichean belief that sex is wrong and certain foods like meat are immoral. (Thus the spiritual ideal for many modern New Agers is a celibate vegetarian, as in the Eastern religions.)

We know that Paul has in mind those who teach sex and certain foods are intrinsically immoral because he tells us that these are "foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer" (1 Tim. 4:3b-5).

Sex and all kinds of food are good things-which is why the Catholic Church has marriage for a sacrament and heartily recommends the practice eating to its members. This is why it is fitting for these things to be given up as part of a spiritual discipline. Thus Daniel gave up meat (as well as wine, another symbol of rejoicing), and Paul endorses the practice of temporary celibacy to engage in a special spiritual discipline of increased prayer (1 Cor. 7:5). By denying ourselves these good things we encourage an attitude of humility, free ourselves from dependence on them, cultivate the spiritual discipline of sacrifice, and remind ourselves of the importance of spiritual goods over earthly goods.

In fact, if there was an important enough purpose, Paul recommended permanently giving up marriage and meat. Thus he himself was celibate (1 Cor. 7:8). He recommended the same for ministers (2 Tim. 2:3-4) and for the unmarried in order to devote themselves more fully to the Lord (1 Cor. 7:32-34), unless doing so would subject them to great temptations (1 Cor. 7:9). Similarly, he recommended giving up meat permanently if it would prevent others from sinning (1 Cor. 8:13).

Since the Catholic Church requires abstinence from meat only on a temporary basis, it clearly does not regard meat is immoral. Instead, it regards it as the giving up of a good thing in order to attain a spiritual goal.

What authority does the Church have to establish days of fast and abstinence?

The authority of Jesus Christ. Jesus told the leaders of his Church, "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Matt.16:19, 18:18). The language of binding and loosing was (in part) a rabinnic way of referring to the ability to establish binding halakah or rules of conduct for the faith community. (See the Jewish Encyclopedia: "Binding and loosing (Hebrew, asar ve-hittir) . . . Rabinnical term for 'forbidding and permitting.'")It is especially appropriate that the references to binding and loosing occur in Matthew, the "Jewish Gospel."

The Jewish Encyclopedia continues: "The power of binding and loosing was always claimed by the Pharisees. Under Queen Alexandra, the Pharisees, says Josephus (Wars of the Jews 1:5:2), 'became the administrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and readmit whom they pleased, as well as to loose and to bind.' . . . The various schools had the power 'to bind and to loose'; that is, to forbid and to permit (Talmud: Chagigah 3b); and they could also bind any day by declaring it a fast day (Talmud: Ta'anit 12a). . . . This power and authority, vested in the rabbinical body of each age of the Sanhedrin, received its ratification and final sanction from the celestial court of justice (Sifra, Emor, 9; Talmud: Makkot 23b).

"In this sense Jesus, when appointing his disciples to be his successors, used the familiar formula (Matt. 16:19, 8:18). By these words he virtually invested them with the same authority as that which he found belonging to the scribes and Pharisees who 'bind heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but will not move them with one of their fingers'; that is 'loose them,' as they have the power to do (Matt. 23:2-4). In the same sense, [in] the second epistle of Clement to James II (Clementine Homilies, Introduction [A.D. 221]) Peter is represented as having appointed Clement as his successor, saying: 'I communicate to him the power of binding and loosing so that, with respect to everything which he shall ordain in the earth, it shall be decreed in the heavens; for he shall bind what ought to be bound and loose what ought to be loosed as knowing the rule of the Church'" (Jewish Encyclopedia 3:215).

Thus Jesus invested the leaders of this Church with the power of making halakah for the Christian community. This includes the setting of fast days (like Ash Wednesday).

To approach the issue from another angle, every family has the authority to establish particular family devotions for its members. If the parents decide that the family will engage in a particular devotion at a particular time (say, Bible reading after supper), it is a sin for the children to disobey and skip the devotion for no good reason. In the same way, the Church as the family of God has the authority to establish its own family devotion, and it is a sin for the members of the Church to disobey and skip the devotions for no good reason. Of course, if the person has a good reason the Church dispenses him.

In addition to Ash Wednesday, are any other days during Lent days of fast or abstinence?

Yes. All Fridays during Lent are days of abstinence. Also, Good Friday, the day on which Christ was crucified, is day of both fast and abstinence.
All days in Lent are appropriate for fasting or abstaining, but canon law does not require it. Such fasting or abstinence is voluntary.

Why are Fridays during Lent days of abstinence?

Because Jesus died for our sins on Friday, making it an especially appropriate day of mourning our sins by denying ourselves something we enjoy. (By the same token, Sunday-the day on which he rose for our salvation-is an especially appropriate day to rejoice.) During the rest of the year Catholics in this country are permitted to use a different act of penance on Friday in place of abstinence, though all Fridays are days of penance on which we are required to do something expressing sorrow for our sins.

Are acts of repentance appropriate on other days during Lent?

Yes. The Code of Canon Law states, "All Fridays through the year and the time of Lent are penitential days and time throughout the universal Church" (CIC 1250).

Why are acts of repentance appropriate at this time of year?

Because it is the time leading up to the commemoration of our Lord's death for our sins and the commemoration of his resurrection for our salvation. It is thus especially appropriate to mourn the sins for which he died. Humans have an innate psychological need to mourn tragedies, and our sins are tragedies of the greatest sort.

What are appropriate activities for ordinary days during Lent?

Giving up something we enjoy, engaging in physical or spiritual acts of mercy for others, prayer, fasting, abstinence, going to confession, and other acts expressing repentance in general.

Is the custom of giving up something for Lent mandatory?

No. However, it is a salutary custom, and parents or guardians may choose to require it, since the spiritual training of their children is their prime responsibility.

Why is giving up something for Lent such a salutary custom?

By denying ourselves something we enjoy, we discipline our wills so that we are not slaves to our pleasures. Just as over-indulging in the pleasure of eating leads to physical flabbiness, over-indulging in pleasure in general leads to spiritual flabbiness. When the demands of morality require us to sacrifice something pleasurable (such as sex outside marriage) or endure hardship (such as being scorned for the faith), spiritual flabbiness may well make us fail.

Is the denying of pleasure an end in itself?

No, it is only a means to an end. By training ourselves to resist temptations when they are not sinful we train ourselves to reject temptations when they are sinful. We also express our sorrow over having failed to resist sinful temptations in the past. There are few better ways to keep our priorities straight than by denying ourselves things of lesser priority to show us that they are not necessary and focus our attention on what is necessary.

Can we deny ourselves too many pleasures?

Definitely. God made human life contingent on certain goods, such as food, and to refuse to enjoy enough of them has harmful consequences. For example, if we do not eat enough food we can damage our bodies (and, in the extreme, even die). Just as there is a balance between eating too much food and not eating enough food, there is a balance involved in other goods.

If we deny ourselves too much, it may deprive us of goods God gave us in order that we might praise him or decrease our effectiveness in ministering to others. It can also constitute the sin of ingratitude by refusing to enjoy the things God wanted us to have because he loves us. If a child refused every gift his parent gave him, it would displease the parent; if we refuse gifts God has given us, it displeases God because he loves us and wants us to have them.

Aside from Ash Wednesday, what are the principal events of Lent?

There are a variety of saints' days that fall during Lent, and some of these change from year to year, since the dates of Lent itself change based on when Easter falls. However, the Sundays during the Lenten season commemorate special events in the life of our Lord, such as his Transfiguration and his triumphal entrance into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, which begins Holy Week. Holy Week climaxes with Holy Thursday, on which Christ celebrated the first Mass; Good Friday, on which he was crucified; and Holy Saturday-the last day of Lent-during which our Lord lay in the tomb before his Resurrection on Easter Sunday.

James Akin is senior apologist at Catholic Answers and a contributing editor of This Rock. His most recent book, The Salvation Controversy, will be published later this year.


Catholic World News CWN
Vatican Liturgical Official Makes New Plea For 'Reform of the Reform'
Feb. 23, 2009 (CWNews.com)

A key Vatican official has called for "bold and courageous" decisions to address liturgical abuses that have arisen since the reforms of Vatican II.

Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, the secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, cites a flawed understanding of Vatican II teachings and the influence of secular ideologies are reasons to conclude that-- as then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger said in 1985-- "the true time of Vatican II has not yet come." Particularly in the realm of the liturgy, Archbishop Ranjith says, "The reform has to go on."

Archbishop Ranjith, who was called to the Vatican personally by Pope Benedict to serve as a papal ally in the quest to restore a sense of reverence in the liturgy, makes his comments in the Foreword to a new book based on the diaries and notes of Cardinal Fernando Antonelli, who was a key figure in the liturgical-reform movement both before and after Vatican II.

The writings of Cardinal Antonelli, Archbishop Ranjith says, help the reader "to understand the complex inner workings of the liturgical reform prior to an immediately following the Council." The Vatican official concludes that implementation of the Council's suggested reforms often veered away from the actual intent of the Council fathers. As a result, Archbishop Ranjith concludes, the liturgy today is not a true realization of the vision put forward in the key liturgical document of Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium (doc).

Specifically, Archbishop Ranjith writes:

Some practices which Sacrosanctum Concilium had never even contemplated were allowed into the Liturgy, like Mass versus populum, Holy Communion in the hand, altogether giving up on the Latin and Gregorian Chant in favor of the vernacular and songs and hymns without much space for God, and extension beyond any reasonable limits of the faculty to concelebrate at Holy Mass. There was also the gross misinterpretation of the principle of "active participation."

The Sri Lankan prelate argues that it in order to carry out a "reform of the reform," it is essential to recognize how the liturgical vision of Vatican lI became distorted. He praises the book on Cardinal Antonelli for allowing the reader to gain a better understanding of "which figures or attitudes caused the present situation." This, the archbishop says, is an inquiry "which, in the name of truth, we cannot abandon."

While acknowledging "the turbulent mood of the years that immediately followed the Council," Archbishop Ranjith reminds readers that in summoning the world's bishops to an ecumenical council, Blessed John XXIII intended "a fortification of the faith." The Council, in the eyes of Pope John, was "certainly not a call to go along with the spirit of the times."

However, he continues, the Council took place at a time of great worldwide intellectual turmoil, and in its aftermath especially, many would-be interpreters saw the event as a break from the prior traditions of the Church. As Archbishop Ranjith puts it:

Basic concepts and themes like Sacrifice and Redemption, Mission, Proclamation and Conversion, Adoration as an integral element of Communion, and the need of the Church for salvation--all were sidelined, while Dialogue, Inculturation, Ecumenism, Eucharist-as-Banquet, Evangelization-as-Witness, etc., became more important. Absolute values were disdained.

Even in the work of the Consilium, the Vatican agency assigned to implement liturgical changes, these influences were clearly felt, the archbishop notes:

An exaggerated sense of antiquarianism, anthopologism, confusion of roles between the ordained and the non-ordained, a limitless provision of space for experimentation-- and indeed, the tendency to look down upon some aspects of the development of the Liturgy in the second millennium-- were increasingly visible among certain liturgical schools.

Today, Archbishop Ranjith writes, the Church can look back and recognize the influences that distorted the original intent of the Council. That recognition, he says, should "help us to be courageous in improving or changing that which was erroneously introduced and which appears to be incompatible with the true dignity of the Liturgy." A much-needed "reform of the reform," he argues, should be inspired by "not merely a desire to correct past mistakes but much more the need to be true to what the Liturgy in fact is and means to us and what the Council itself defined it to be."

Archbishop Ranjith's 10-page Foreword appears in the English-language edition of a book entitled True Development of the Liturgy is written by Msgr. Nicola Giampietro, who serves on the staff of the Congregation for Divine Worship. It will be available in September from Roman Catholic Books.


The Baltimore Catechism
Lesson Sixth: On The Incarnation and Redemption

60. Q. Did God abandon man after he fell into sin?
A. God did not abandon man after he fell into sin, but promised him a Redeemer, who was to
satisfy for man's sin and reopen to him the gates of heaven.
61. Q. Who is the Redeemer?
A. Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is the Redeemer of mankind.

62. Q. What do you believe of Jesus Christ?
A. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the second Person of the Blessed Trinity, true
God and true man.
69. Q. What do you mean by the Incarnation?
A. By the Incarnation I mean that the Son of God was made man.

70. Q. How was the Son of God made man?
A. The Son of God was conceived and made man by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb
of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

74. Q. On what day was the Son of God conceived and made man?
A. The Son of God was conceived and made man on Annunciation day-the day on which the
angel Gabriel announced to the Blessed Virgin Mary that she was to be the Mother of God.

75. Q. On what day was Christ born?
A. Christ was born on Christmas day in a stable at Bethlehem, over nineteen hundred years ago


Sola Scriptura?
By Grace at Spring Whimsy

Venite Missa Est! note: This young lady's blog popped up in my email (you can set up Google alerts to send emails to you about any given subject that shows up on the web, I have it set for "Traditional Latin Mass"). I post this not as official Church doctrine or as an aplogists source of information but because this young lady, at fifteen (from her profile) seems so focused and bright and her writing made a good read. That being said, accuracy of information is not verified by Ventie Missa Est.

“Sola Scriptura” as reverent as it may sound, is not even biblical. Martin Luther began “Sola Scriptura” saying a visible church and clergy were not necessary but through faith and the Bible alone one can be saved. This appealed to many people, of course, since this basically removed the responsibility one has and the sacrifice one owes to God, especially through the sacrifice of the Mass, which Luther and many other Protestant leaders denied.
In some passages it references that “only in faith...” yes, but the Protestants take it to a different level as in literally FAITH ALONE without works, without sacrifices. History is necessary to learn as a companion to studying the Bible. Back then, when the evangelists had written for the salvation of man to be by faith itself, he was correcting how the common thought of the salvation (or 'measure') of a man is by his riches. Throughout the Bible, you will see all of the evangelists mention our need to not only have faith, but practice it by sacrifice, penance, good works...etc.
The reason for Sola Scriptura’s not being biblical is because Martin Luther had said that one can take what he pleases out of the bible that does not suit his own liking, yet can put in or replace what he thinks suits. I was conversing with a “Sola Scriptura” Protestant earlier and they said to me: “That’s what I say it means, I’d like to know your opinion on the passage.” Here’s an example they argued with me:
John 3 :3 Jesus answered, and said to him: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
They did not believe baptism with water and the spirit was necessary but just a “symbol”. Protestants take this literally, being born again, and then take it that when you have faith you may be born again in Christ or “free from sin”. But thus, one can not call themselves a follower of Christ, if they do not follow His teachings, but of “Sola Scriptura”.
Replying to them, I gave them this verse:
John 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
“Born again” newborns go through baptism to be cleansed of Original Sin which we all have inherited from Adam and Eve (Genesis 3). John the Baptist was baptizing people obviously in the river of water and blessed them. By ‘born again’ we are entering into a ‘new life in Christ’ after baptism. But thus, in the passage before this one, it says that one can not “see” the Kingdom of Heaven without being ‘born again’ and then it says below that one can not “enter” into the kingdom without ‘being born of the water and of the spirit’.
I am giving you this above argument because it shows how the Protestants with “Sola Scriptura” take the bible literally and as Martin Luther said, basically ignore or take out what they do not like. This in Martin Luther’s false doctrine is so very wide-spread. But one can not make his own doctrines!
1 Cor. 3:11 For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus.
The foundation is Christ and his doctrine: or the true faith in him, working through charity.
Ephesians 2:20 Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:21 In whom all the building, being framed together, groweth up into an holy temple in the Lord. 22 In whom you also are built together into an habitation of God in the Spirit.
This is truthfully stating that a visible church is indeed necessary, but One Church, the Catholic Church which has been since Jesus came as the New Covenant.

1 Peter 2:5 Be you also as living stones built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.6 Wherefore it is said in the scripture: Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious. And he that shall believe in him, shall not be confounded.

This is the calling again of a visible church, a holy priesthood to “offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus”! So thus, indeed a visible Church is necessary and a holy priesthood. “Chief corner stone” whereas Peter interpreted is that stone, or he is also known as “Cephus” with a capital C which is “the Rock” which Jesus thus then named him “the Rock” to be head of Christ’s visible church. Thus, God is always head of the Church but both visible and invisible. Peter was made the first Pope therefore “all that shall believe in him, shall not be confounded.”
Matthew 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Jesus told us to teach all nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost (Matt. 28: 19) to teach Christ’s religion (Matt. 28: 20) to offer the sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ (John 22:19) to loose and bind (Matt. 18:18) to forgive sins (John 20:23) to exercise Christ’s own authority (John 20:21).
Therefore concluding that “Sola Scriptura” does not rely on the Word of God nor is it even biblical.

No comments: